 |
| (Pic : cardiffcityhall.com) |
Their motion called for the Assembly to :
- Recognise the importance of empowering individuals and community groups to tackle local issues.
- Welcome the Cardiff mayoral campaign.
- Call upon the Welsh Government to take steps to create a more engaged populace by :
- holding referendums on proposed council mergers
- introducing a community "right to bid" (for community assets) and "right to challenge" (council decisions)
- lowering the number of signatures needed to trigger a mayoral referendum
Shadow Local Government Minister, Janet Finch-Saunders (Con, Aberconwy), started by saying the debate was centred around "true devolution" (where've we heard that before?) and giving power to communities (clip), as there's an army of unsung heroes who need more professional support and guidance – one of the bigger obstacles being not knowing who owns community assets.
Labour have refused to enact parts of the Localism Act 2011, so local authorities aren't obliged to draft lists of community assets. The Conservative support the campaign in Cardiff to hold a referendum on a directly-elected mayor, but the threshold – set at 10% of electors – is twice England's, where they also hold referendums on excessive council tax rises.
Simon Thomas AM (Plaid, Mid & West Wales) introduced Plaid Cymru's amendment (clip) which plugged their own public services paper (pdf). He agreed with the Conservatives on their first point, but very little else. Accountability for local government comes from elections and consultations, not referendums on mergers and mayors which act as a "fig leaf for the absence of policy" and a narrow-minded approach to decision making. Simon called for single-tranferable vote (STV) to be introduced and to increase the representation of women, young people and the disabled.
He described himself as a veteran of a referendum campaign in Ceredigion to introduce an elected mayor, which was rejected. He also suggested the campaign in Cardiff was more about the lack of leadership in the local authority and local Labour party (Local Intelligence).
Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) introduced amendments which rejected the elected mayor and called for the introduction of STV (clip). He agreed that more aspects of the Localism Act like the "right to bid" and "right to challenge" would transform how local government's run in Wales.
He wasn't in a position to judge the Cardiff mayor campaign and said it was inappropriate for the Assembly to pass judgement, but local Lib Dems don't support it because of the implications of local government reform. However, he was open to the idea of an elected-mayor for Swansea as it might change the dynamic of how Swansea is heard within Wales.
After an intervention from Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East), where Mike said STV would produce wards that are too big, Peter said the STV system works perfectly fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland which often have large rural areas, so it's not a barrier.
Mark Isherwood AM (Con, North Wales) called for government to draw upon the existing community experience to build stronger communities of the future (clip). This was different from Labour's "top-down control", where community ownership plans have been watered down when compared to England. Mark said communities should be allowed to bring forward neighbourhood develop plans for smaller-scale developments like shops and affordable housing. We need to "design the system backwards and set the people free."
Jenny Rathbone AM (Lab, Cardiff Central) found it hard to disagree with parts of motion (clip), but the fact the Tories were working with with "dissident" Labour councillors and Plaid's Cllr. Neil McEvoy was "very interesting" - earlier attempts to create mayor via the backdoor led to hostility against that individual.
Jenny's main reservation with mayors is the concentration of too much power in hands of an individual, who would have no more powers than a council leader. Research has shown improved leadership and vision for Bristol under George Ferguson, but elected mayors aren't always a success – Hangus the Monkey's tenure in Hartlepool led to the scrapping of the mayoral system there, while Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets had his election invalidated.
Mohammad Ashgar AM (Con, South Wales East) believed transferring power from central government to local authorities and communities would give them a bigger say in matters affecting them (clip). The rights in Localism Act were not enacted, meaning local assets could be lost permanently – like libraries and pubs. Losing assets is a real loss to a community, and groups need more time to organise bids and raise money. Wales needs a list of assets nominated by community themselves, so when they're put up for sale, community groups will have time to develop a bid properly.
Julie Morgan AM (Lab, Cardiff North) praised Cardiff as great place to live and work, becoming a top city for quality of life as well one of fastest growing cities in UK – all achieved without a directly-elected mayor (clip). It's important to have as much local democracy as possible, and Cardiff Council have done that through numerous consultation exercises.
Having a mayor would be a "diversion" from issues facing local government, particularly funding cuts. It's also inappropriate ahead of local government reorganisation and the city deal – where 10 local authorities are working together. Julie said the referendum cost could be £500,000, while a mayoral election would be another £500,000.
Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central), turned his attention to Wales' 700 town and community councils, which were described as a "bedrock of democracy" (clip). Some of the larger councils are significant councils with significant responsibilities, and could be more involved in the planning system when they're not currently engaged properly.
A Cardiff mayor would be a great way to compete economically with Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester. As an opportunity to devolve powers out and localise decision-making, there's no better way to achieve it but via a directly-elected mayor.
On behalf of the government, Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews (Lab, Rhondda), explained that the draft Local Government Bill sets out plans for empowering local people and creating "activist councils" (clip). He agreed with the general argument for local empowerment, but disagreed with the Conservative approach.
Localism, as a term, was being abused to disguise the Tory's "real intention to slash budgets", where there've been far more serious cuts to spending in English local authorities (10% cuts in cash terms) while Welsh budgets have increased. Communities and workforces must have their say on major decision taken by local authorities, but council tax makes up small part of income – referendums on council tax would be "divisive and confrontational".
The draft Bill gives individuals and communities extensive rights to have their say as well as the ability for councils to transfer assets to community groups. The Localism Act is too market-oriented and leaves community groups ill-prepared for what's involved.
On the mayoral referendum, Leighton said it was for local people to decide if they can demonstrate local support, and the 10% threshold was realistic; a lower threshold would lead to frivolous referendums.
In reply to the debate, Nick Ramsay (Con, Monmouth) said it was taking place amidst uncertainties brought about by local government reorganisation (clip). Mayors have massive potential to develop local democracy and move the debate forwards, whilst playing an important role in improving local areas. He said there was a perception vs reality issue on the threat of excessive powers of local mayors, as they could be constructed in a such a way as to have more benefits than drawbacks.
Not unsurprisingly, the motion and all of its amendments were rejected.
 |
| "Beware councils bearing gifts." Community asset transfers sound like a good deal for both sides, but they're often wrought with difficulties. (Pic : © Copyright Jaggery and licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Licence.) |
It's good that the Assembly is debating things like this. During the Williams Commission and Local Government Bill process there's been too much focus on the map and mergers and not enough discussion on what local government should actually do, and what local government even means in post-devolution Wales. This is something the Commission should've discussed themselves as it's too late to do anything about it now.
You probably already know I'm in favour of directly-elected mayors (with broadly the same powers as current chief executives and council leaders). Though instead of the quality of councillors and council leaders being my concern, I'm more concerned about the amount of power concentrated in the hands of unelected chief executives – no guesses as to who I'm referring to there. In such an arrangement elected councillors are almost useless as there's always an organ grinder without any mandate at all making the monkeys dance - again, no need to refer to any particular local authority.
On community asset transfers I'm more cautious. The principle that communities should take ownership of venues or services that might otherwise be lost is a sound one, but these transfers can be a double-edged sword and there's a local example of such.
Cymmer swimming pool in the Afan Valley was sold to a local community company by Neath Port Talbot Council for £1. The company secured the support of NPT College's Llandarcy Park Ltd to run the pool and were given financial donations from a wind farm company and the local health board to back that up.
However, results of a survey earlier this month found it would need an undisclosed sum of money – presumably too much – in order to bring the building and pool up to the right standard. There are also echoes of what might've happened with the Berwyn Centre in Nantymoel had the community bought Bridgend Council out.
It might be romantic - Field of Dreams style - to see a community take control of its own assets, but if the local authority or company or whatever has left it a wreck through under-investment, it's still going to be a wreck when it's handed over.
I don't know if there's a case for some sort of ring-fenced fund, or loan facility (perhaps backed by a future Development Bank) to ensure community groups have the capital and commercial expertise they need to see these projects through and develop robust business plans.
0 comments:
Post a Comment